Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

The US ultra-right should leave the UK alone!!!

452 replies

StandFirm · 14/04/2025 10:59

I was going to use a rude expletive in the thread title to truly reflect my thoughts on this. I've known about this insidious creeping influence for a little while but reading the article in the link below has made me livid. We are not going to be censored by foreign actors who understand nothing about our culture. I have often observed a false sense of familiarity among Brits regarding American culture but it goes both ways, and this attempt at dragging us along into the dark pit of ignorance should stay the fuck away from here:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2025/apr/14/librarians-in-uk-increasingly-asked-to-remove-books-as-influence-of-us-pressure-groups-spreads

Librarians in UK increasingly asked to remove books, as influence of US pressure groups spreads

Anecdotal evidence suggests a rise in requests to take books off shelves, particularly LGBTQ+ titles

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2025/apr/14/librarians-in-uk-increasingly-asked-to-remove-books-as-influence-of-us-pressure-groups-spreads

OP posts:
Thread gallery
12
SnoopyPajamas · 23/04/2025 22:30

We're still at it, I see 😂

SnoopyPajamas · 23/04/2025 22:37

@StandFirm If sex = female and woman = gender, what is gender?

What does "woman" mean to you? In real, concrete terms. No circular reasoning. No "a woman is anyone who feels like a woman" guff.

When you picture a group of womangendered people in your mind, what are the characteristics they all share? There must be some, in order for them to be a coherent group. I'm genuinely curious.

Mookie81 · 24/04/2025 06:54

StandFirm · 23/04/2025 09:14

Besides the whole sorry bunfight, there is no loyalty or disloyalty here in play - the actors got their big break from Warner Bros who got the rights to JKR's intellectual property. They can say what they like - but more likely if there was any loyalty to anyone, it would be to the studio that cast them in the franchise. If anything, the studio execs are the ones you guys should berate for cancelling JKR when she created the golden goose they've been exploiting to death. But then again, without Warner Bros she wouldn't be a billionaire, would she?

Edited

Erm she had money from her books, you know, the things made from paper? She didn't need Warner Bros. to get rich thank you. Hmm
Yes he can say what he likes, but comparing her to Andrew Tate makes him a moron who can't formulate a proper argument or opinion.

StandFirm · 24/04/2025 07:21

Mookie81 · 24/04/2025 06:54

Erm she had money from her books, you know, the things made from paper? She didn't need Warner Bros. to get rich thank you. Hmm
Yes he can say what he likes, but comparing her to Andrew Tate makes him a moron who can't formulate a proper argument or opinion.

What makes you an expert eh? Books made her some money for sure but the real cash comes from the films, merch and theme parks. You don't become a billionaire through book royalties alone.

OP posts:
StandFirm · 24/04/2025 09:06

SnoopyPajamas · 23/04/2025 22:37

@StandFirm If sex = female and woman = gender, what is gender?

What does "woman" mean to you? In real, concrete terms. No circular reasoning. No "a woman is anyone who feels like a woman" guff.

When you picture a group of womangendered people in your mind, what are the characteristics they all share? There must be some, in order for them to be a coherent group. I'm genuinely curious.

If you want a gender critical debate, there are other threads for that. My views on what defines a woman are neither here nor there. The issue I have with you and one other poster here is that you have not tried to engage with my actual points ONCE. If you had been interested and the thread had organically gone into gender issues, then yes, I'd answer your question, but that's not what happened. Before you bang on about what a woman is perhaps you should learn to be respectful of other women in the first place.

OP posts:
EasternStandard · 24/04/2025 09:10

StandFirm · 24/04/2025 07:21

What makes you an expert eh? Books made her some money for sure but the real cash comes from the films, merch and theme parks. You don't become a billionaire through book royalties alone.

@Mookie81is right about the guy being an idiot.

I’d say $60m to $80m is rich. She’s talented clearly and wealthy plus a woman and it gets to people. Especially some weak men - and their supporters.

However, estimates suggest she earned between $60 million and $80 million from book sales alone, averaging around $8.57 million per book.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 24/04/2025 09:13

StandFirm · 24/04/2025 09:06

If you want a gender critical debate, there are other threads for that. My views on what defines a woman are neither here nor there. The issue I have with you and one other poster here is that you have not tried to engage with my actual points ONCE. If you had been interested and the thread had organically gone into gender issues, then yes, I'd answer your question, but that's not what happened. Before you bang on about what a woman is perhaps you should learn to be respectful of other women in the first place.

This thread has strayed wildly off topic though.

It was about shady right wing American groups supposedly involved in a campaign to have LGBT books removed from British libraries.

And people pointed out to you that the article you posted was extremely poorly researched and poorly written, and expressed scepticism about the claims you were making.

As for showing respect for other women, I agree. Which is why I would like you to stop suggesting that British gender critical feminists are in bed with the American far right.

StandFirm · 24/04/2025 10:35

EasternStandard · 24/04/2025 09:10

@Mookie81is right about the guy being an idiot.

I’d say $60m to $80m is rich. She’s talented clearly and wealthy plus a woman and it gets to people. Especially some weak men - and their supporters.

However, estimates suggest she earned between $60 million and $80 million from book sales alone, averaging around $8.57 million per book.

Illustrates my point; she is a billionaire, therefore magnitudes wealthier than what she could have achieved purely through book sales. When talking about actors and the films, you can't leave out the role that the studio played in bringing the franchise to the world. The studio picking up the rights and turning it into a behemoth generated the vast majority of that wealth. That does not detract from her talent! If anything, it shows that she's savvy in business as well as creative.

OP posts:
StandFirm · 24/04/2025 10:40

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 24/04/2025 09:13

This thread has strayed wildly off topic though.

It was about shady right wing American groups supposedly involved in a campaign to have LGBT books removed from British libraries.

And people pointed out to you that the article you posted was extremely poorly researched and poorly written, and expressed scepticism about the claims you were making.

As for showing respect for other women, I agree. Which is why I would like you to stop suggesting that British gender critical feminists are in bed with the American far right.

This thread has strayed wildly off topic though.
Thanks to you!

Which is why I would like you to stop suggesting that British gender critical feminists are in bed with the American far right.
You are saying that, I didn't.

And I have shared many more examples of how the US right wing (through think tanks, foundations and official policies in the White House) is trying to have or likely to have a negative impact on us. You have not engaged with that at all beyond 'we should build a wall around the US'. If that's the only point you can make about it, fine, but why actively derail the thread again and again? You and one other poster did that and I maintain that is disrespectful.

OP posts:
EasternStandard · 24/04/2025 10:53

StandFirm · 24/04/2025 10:35

Illustrates my point; she is a billionaire, therefore magnitudes wealthier than what she could have achieved purely through book sales. When talking about actors and the films, you can't leave out the role that the studio played in bringing the franchise to the world. The studio picking up the rights and turning it into a behemoth generated the vast majority of that wealth. That does not detract from her talent! If anything, it shows that she's savvy in business as well as creative.

No it doesn’t. JKR would still be rich from just books.

In any case her talent still led to the signing of a major film deal from those books.

The repeated attempts to undermine her success are a bit pathetic tbf. If it’s so easy feel free to emulate. You and that guy moaning below.

ETA there’s likely a dose of misogyny there for those that do it.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 24/04/2025 11:09

StandFirm · 24/04/2025 10:40

This thread has strayed wildly off topic though.
Thanks to you!

Which is why I would like you to stop suggesting that British gender critical feminists are in bed with the American far right.
You are saying that, I didn't.

And I have shared many more examples of how the US right wing (through think tanks, foundations and official policies in the White House) is trying to have or likely to have a negative impact on us. You have not engaged with that at all beyond 'we should build a wall around the US'. If that's the only point you can make about it, fine, but why actively derail the thread again and again? You and one other poster did that and I maintain that is disrespectful.

You refused to engage with the point that at least some of the books under discussion are considered problematic by gender critical feminists and lesbians because they promote homophobia and glorify self harm, and that these women's objection to these books has absolutely nothing to do with America, or the far right.

SnoopyPajamas · 24/04/2025 12:16

StandFirm · 24/04/2025 09:06

If you want a gender critical debate, there are other threads for that. My views on what defines a woman are neither here nor there. The issue I have with you and one other poster here is that you have not tried to engage with my actual points ONCE. If you had been interested and the thread had organically gone into gender issues, then yes, I'd answer your question, but that's not what happened. Before you bang on about what a woman is perhaps you should learn to be respectful of other women in the first place.

No, you wouldn't. Don't make me laugh!

I and other posters have engaged with your points many times. We've pointed out the ways in which the source you're drawing from is flawed. We've pointed out how past attempts by American pressure groups to influence British thinking have failed. We've pointed out how the American right (and America in general) doesn't understand British culture well enough to manipulate us, and therefore isn't the threat you think it is. We've pointed out that much of what you see as Project 2025 ideology infiltrating Britain isn't so at all. That Tommy Robinson was a public figure here long before Elon Musk paid him any attention, and that most of the 'LGBTQIA' books being removed from libraries here are TQ books, specifically, which were campaigned against not by homophobic Evangelicals, but by lefty gender critical mums.

We have engaged with your posts. You just don't like that we're arguing. The only person on this thread who agrees with you is the one who, like you, has "ties to America". That should tell you something. British women are telling you, over and over, "No, we see their attempts and they don't wash. Here's the actual state of British feminism and how we're fighting". And your response is to take no interest and fixate instead on America.

"I'm all about women's rights" you claim, while not paying attention to women's rights causes in the UK, and not even being able to define what a woman is. Any definition of womangender you could give would be based solely on sexist stereotypes like "women have long hair" and "women are soft and feminine", or some other such nonsense. And you know that, which is the real reason you haven't answered me. Because you haven't got a leg to stand on, and you know it. Because Trump said transwomen aren't women, and if Trump said the sky was blue, you'd say it was red just to disagree with him.

By the way, I can't speak for anyone else, but I know I would have engaged with your points a lot more, if you hadn't flounced off and left the thread some way back. I had a whole response typed up about the Northern Ireland abortion issue, and how attributing it to the influence of American evangelicals is a gross oversimplification of the issue there, that ignores the complexities of the region. But you'd flounced, so I didn't bother to post. I was quite annoyed to find you'd flounced back a few days later and moved the conversation on to such hot-button feminist topics as Brexit and chlorinated chicken.

It also seems like you got a lot of @MissScarletInTheBallroom 's posts deleted, and I have no idea why. I can't remember anything delete-worthy in them, and was very surprised to find them gone when I returned to the thread.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 24/04/2025 12:18

SnoopyPajamas · 24/04/2025 12:16

No, you wouldn't. Don't make me laugh!

I and other posters have engaged with your points many times. We've pointed out the ways in which the source you're drawing from is flawed. We've pointed out how past attempts by American pressure groups to influence British thinking have failed. We've pointed out how the American right (and America in general) doesn't understand British culture well enough to manipulate us, and therefore isn't the threat you think it is. We've pointed out that much of what you see as Project 2025 ideology infiltrating Britain isn't so at all. That Tommy Robinson was a public figure here long before Elon Musk paid him any attention, and that most of the 'LGBTQIA' books being removed from libraries here are TQ books, specifically, which were campaigned against not by homophobic Evangelicals, but by lefty gender critical mums.

We have engaged with your posts. You just don't like that we're arguing. The only person on this thread who agrees with you is the one who, like you, has "ties to America". That should tell you something. British women are telling you, over and over, "No, we see their attempts and they don't wash. Here's the actual state of British feminism and how we're fighting". And your response is to take no interest and fixate instead on America.

"I'm all about women's rights" you claim, while not paying attention to women's rights causes in the UK, and not even being able to define what a woman is. Any definition of womangender you could give would be based solely on sexist stereotypes like "women have long hair" and "women are soft and feminine", or some other such nonsense. And you know that, which is the real reason you haven't answered me. Because you haven't got a leg to stand on, and you know it. Because Trump said transwomen aren't women, and if Trump said the sky was blue, you'd say it was red just to disagree with him.

By the way, I can't speak for anyone else, but I know I would have engaged with your points a lot more, if you hadn't flounced off and left the thread some way back. I had a whole response typed up about the Northern Ireland abortion issue, and how attributing it to the influence of American evangelicals is a gross oversimplification of the issue there, that ignores the complexities of the region. But you'd flounced, so I didn't bother to post. I was quite annoyed to find you'd flounced back a few days later and moved the conversation on to such hot-button feminist topics as Brexit and chlorinated chicken.

It also seems like you got a lot of @MissScarletInTheBallroom 's posts deleted, and I have no idea why. I can't remember anything delete-worthy in them, and was very surprised to find them gone when I returned to the thread.

Yes, I have no idea why either and I am quite annoyed that Mumsnet actually deleted them. I can't see how they were against the Talk Guidelines in any way.

StandFirm · 24/04/2025 12:24

EasternStandard · 24/04/2025 10:53

No it doesn’t. JKR would still be rich from just books.

In any case her talent still led to the signing of a major film deal from those books.

The repeated attempts to undermine her success are a bit pathetic tbf. If it’s so easy feel free to emulate. You and that guy moaning below.

ETA there’s likely a dose of misogyny there for those that do it.

Edited

Me? Misogynistic? I've heard it all now. What did I say here? Come on! If you don't read my posts, don't comment. I quote my last sentence:

That does not detract from her talent! If anything, it shows that she's savvy in business as well as creative.

I was talking about the notion of loyalty earlier - to point out that yes, the actors are likely feeling more beholden to the studio than to JKR and that's because her creation turned into an actual industry. And good for her! I'd love to emulate her! There is no shame in working with a studio... or is that not acceptable somehow in MN world? How many authors do you think are dying to get their books optioned by an actual studio of that size? She made it in Hollywood - Goodness me - give me 1% of her success!

This is just turning into a boring pile on.

GUYS: READ MY POSTS NOT WHAT YOU THINK I MEANT.

OP posts:
EasternStandard · 24/04/2025 12:29

StandFirm · 24/04/2025 12:24

Me? Misogynistic? I've heard it all now. What did I say here? Come on! If you don't read my posts, don't comment. I quote my last sentence:

That does not detract from her talent! If anything, it shows that she's savvy in business as well as creative.

I was talking about the notion of loyalty earlier - to point out that yes, the actors are likely feeling more beholden to the studio than to JKR and that's because her creation turned into an actual industry. And good for her! I'd love to emulate her! There is no shame in working with a studio... or is that not acceptable somehow in MN world? How many authors do you think are dying to get their books optioned by an actual studio of that size? She made it in Hollywood - Goodness me - give me 1% of her success!

This is just turning into a boring pile on.

GUYS: READ MY POSTS NOT WHAT YOU THINK I MEANT.

You said @Mookie81was incorrect to say she would be rich from books alone.

She wasn’t wrong, the amount of money below is high.

SnoopyPajamas · 24/04/2025 12:30

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 24/04/2025 12:18

Yes, I have no idea why either and I am quite annoyed that Mumsnet actually deleted them. I can't see how they were against the Talk Guidelines in any way.

It baffled me. I wouldn't hold your breath on finding out though. I suspect OP is gathering her skirts for another flounce

SnoopyPajamas · 24/04/2025 12:34

GUYS READ MY POSTS NOT WHAT YOU THINK I MEANT

BUT DON'T ASK ME TO CLARIFY WHAT I MEAN BECAUSE I'LL ONLY EXPLAIN WHAT I THINK A WOMAN IS WHEN THE STARS ALIGN AND YOU'RE EXTRA NICE TO ME

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 24/04/2025 12:41

Interestingly there is now a lot of stuff on my Facebook news feed about the Supreme Court judgment.

And when I click on the profiles of people who have criticised the judgment, most of them are in America.

Where do these people get off, thinking that a UK Supreme Court judgment confirming that British women actually have rights has anything to do with them?

Perhaps I was wrong to suggest that Americans aren't trying to undermine British women's rights, but the OP was wrong to suggest that the Americans doing this are all on the conservative side of the political divide. Seems like there are a lot of Democrat voters who object to us having rights as well.

Makes me want to say, "Fuck off, this has nothing to do with you. Watch and learn how British women are safeguarding their own rights. If you emulate them you might find you have a few more rights of your own, handmaidens."

StandFirm · 24/04/2025 13:21

SnoopyPajamas · 24/04/2025 12:16

No, you wouldn't. Don't make me laugh!

I and other posters have engaged with your points many times. We've pointed out the ways in which the source you're drawing from is flawed. We've pointed out how past attempts by American pressure groups to influence British thinking have failed. We've pointed out how the American right (and America in general) doesn't understand British culture well enough to manipulate us, and therefore isn't the threat you think it is. We've pointed out that much of what you see as Project 2025 ideology infiltrating Britain isn't so at all. That Tommy Robinson was a public figure here long before Elon Musk paid him any attention, and that most of the 'LGBTQIA' books being removed from libraries here are TQ books, specifically, which were campaigned against not by homophobic Evangelicals, but by lefty gender critical mums.

We have engaged with your posts. You just don't like that we're arguing. The only person on this thread who agrees with you is the one who, like you, has "ties to America". That should tell you something. British women are telling you, over and over, "No, we see their attempts and they don't wash. Here's the actual state of British feminism and how we're fighting". And your response is to take no interest and fixate instead on America.

"I'm all about women's rights" you claim, while not paying attention to women's rights causes in the UK, and not even being able to define what a woman is. Any definition of womangender you could give would be based solely on sexist stereotypes like "women have long hair" and "women are soft and feminine", or some other such nonsense. And you know that, which is the real reason you haven't answered me. Because you haven't got a leg to stand on, and you know it. Because Trump said transwomen aren't women, and if Trump said the sky was blue, you'd say it was red just to disagree with him.

By the way, I can't speak for anyone else, but I know I would have engaged with your points a lot more, if you hadn't flounced off and left the thread some way back. I had a whole response typed up about the Northern Ireland abortion issue, and how attributing it to the influence of American evangelicals is a gross oversimplification of the issue there, that ignores the complexities of the region. But you'd flounced, so I didn't bother to post. I was quite annoyed to find you'd flounced back a few days later and moved the conversation on to such hot-button feminist topics as Brexit and chlorinated chicken.

It also seems like you got a lot of @MissScarletInTheBallroom 's posts deleted, and I have no idea why. I can't remember anything delete-worthy in them, and was very surprised to find them gone when I returned to the thread.

You are extremely offensive because you don't read or bother to understand what I write and because you've highjacked this thread shamelessly. Another poster suggested the source was flawed but IN THE SAME BREATH proceeded to berate and insult me. There was a way to discuss the original article without resorting to insults: straight-up accusing me of ignorance, laziness, not caring about women's rights, of calling me a hypocrite. I mean, the BILE on this thread is unreal. I even got accused of not being from my own country! How offensive is that?! I only tried to keep the discussion focused on the threat of censorship and the US far right as a whole and that the UK right shares close ties with them - especially Reform and a couple of Tory ultras.

85% of MNers who voted agreed that I was not BU.

What is a woman? I will not engage in a gender critical debate. Not here. Not now. Certainly not with you. There is a biological definition (chromosomes) of the sexes but I will not define what a woman or a man is anymore than I feel up to defining what makes us human. We are more than our biology, we are beings with complex identities.

I don't want a Gilead-style regime influencing the UK through shadily financed pressure-groups. (I don't think the Democrats got everything right either but again, this was not the point of the discussion and I never implied that they were perfect!)

OP posts:
SnoopyPajamas · 24/04/2025 15:03

StandFirm · 24/04/2025 13:21

You are extremely offensive because you don't read or bother to understand what I write and because you've highjacked this thread shamelessly. Another poster suggested the source was flawed but IN THE SAME BREATH proceeded to berate and insult me. There was a way to discuss the original article without resorting to insults: straight-up accusing me of ignorance, laziness, not caring about women's rights, of calling me a hypocrite. I mean, the BILE on this thread is unreal. I even got accused of not being from my own country! How offensive is that?! I only tried to keep the discussion focused on the threat of censorship and the US far right as a whole and that the UK right shares close ties with them - especially Reform and a couple of Tory ultras.

85% of MNers who voted agreed that I was not BU.

What is a woman? I will not engage in a gender critical debate. Not here. Not now. Certainly not with you. There is a biological definition (chromosomes) of the sexes but I will not define what a woman or a man is anymore than I feel up to defining what makes us human. We are more than our biology, we are beings with complex identities.

I don't want a Gilead-style regime influencing the UK through shadily financed pressure-groups. (I don't think the Democrats got everything right either but again, this was not the point of the discussion and I never implied that they were perfect!)

What bile? You're in a thread arguing a point of view. When posters claim you're being lazy, hypocritical, ignorant or indifferent to women's rights, they are referring solely to your actions on this thread. To the opinions you've expressed here and the stances you've taken. You do . . . understand that? It's perfectly possible for an argument to be hypocritical in nature. It's perfectly possible for a poster to be ignorant of the topic they're talking about. You're taking things personally when they were never intended to be so. These aren't personal insults, they're just the cut and thrust of debate.

I can tell you don't understand that. To you, everyone who argues against your point isn't engaging, and everyone who calls out the weakness of your argument is attacking you. This is unfortunate, as it makes it hard to have any kind of conversation with you.

Oh, and for what it's worth . . . being an American is not an insult. Or being half-American, or being an American with UK citizenship, or anything else. I did see your reply upthread, but I found your "people can be more than their passports!" diatribe to be strange and childish, so I didn't respond to it. As should have been obvious: a poster being American on Mumsnet is not a bad thing. But it is going to limit their understanding of British culture. If an American insists something is a big deal and a threat to British women, and British women come back in droves to say it isn't, then it's just respectful to listen.

Ironically, my suspicious "Is this an American trying to influence British women?" attitude is an example of why American 'pressure groups' don't gain much traction over here. We've got a fine-tuned radar, and we look for inconsistencies in what's being presented to us. You seemed inconsistent to me, so I challenged you. This is what you claim to want, so even if it's annoying, you should be happy my critical thinking is switched on. (But, of course, you're not.)

The AIBU votes . . . they were mostly from earlier in the thread, before posters had begun to rebut your arguments. It's also possible they voted "YANBU to not want the UK to be like America". Not "YANBU to uncritically swallow this story in the Guardian". There's no way to ask them.

What is a woman? I will not engage in a gender critical debate. Not here. Not now. Certainly not with you.

Not here, not now, not ever, not with anyone.

Be honest. You are terrified of this debate and know you have no good answers. If you disliked me so much, you'd be only too happy to prove me wrong. You can't, so you're pretending to take the high ground. It fools no-one.

There is a biological definition (chromosomes) of the sexes but I will not define what a woman or a man is anymore than I feel up to defining what makes us human. We are more than our biology, we are beings with complex identities.

And there it is. Half-baked guff implying that observing someone's sex can somehow strip them of their humanity.

Being male or female doesn't make anyone less human, or any less of a complex individual. As I expected, your argument for why woman should be a genderfeeling instead of a material sex, is ridiculous.

StandFirm · 24/04/2025 16:14

Please work on your reading comprehension...

OP posts:
SnoopyPajamas · 24/04/2025 16:53

Is that the best you can do? Oh dear.

This devastating burn is coming from someone who believes the word "woman" has no coherent meaning, so I'm more amused than anything.

Have a good day. Try not to let the bogeyman catch your ankle from under the bed.

JHound · 24/04/2025 17:15

To get the thread back on track this is the kind of thing that worries me. There have been lots of rumours so no idea if there is any merit to these claims, but making any trade deal dependent on us abandoning our values is just unacceptable to me, although I am perfectly aware that the USA has plenty of form for this

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/britain-trade-deal-trump-lgbt-hate-speech-b2734998.html

This is going to be a LONG 4 years….

Britain must not trade away its values for a deal with Trump

Protecting people against hate speech is not just morally right but essential for an optimal economy, writes Peter Tatchell. Not only do people who feel safe, protected and valued tend to be more productive, but how can we criticise the likes of Putin...

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/britain-trade-deal-trump-lgbt-hate-speech-b2734998.html

SnoopyPajamas · 24/04/2025 19:16

The article is paywalled and I'm not going to bother signing up for six months of The Independent. CBA'd to archive it either.

For anyone curious, it seems to be written by Peter Tatchell. Presumably, that Peter Tatchell.

JHound · 24/04/2025 19:19

How curious - it’s not Paywall’d for me (and I don’t pay for the Independent).